Wa. Climbers Coalition November 12

[marylou]

Sorry to have been such a blabbermouth last night. It was interesting to see seemingly disparate recreation groups facing a lot of the same problems. I think we have some great opportunities to work together.

[saragrace]

Not at all -- it was lovely to have a the perspective from those of you who represent multiple user groups!

 

Thanks, all -- we had to duck out early to make a ferry, but had a great time and it was nice to meet you all.

 

Sara (Grace)

 

 

 

[mattp]

One of the items that we discussed at last week's meeting of the Washington Climbers Coalition was the ongoing schism between those persons in the environmental community who view public lands and in particular wilderness areas as a place where recreational visitors should be extremely restricted or even excluded because human presence is inherently harmful and those who believe that human recreation is one of the important purposes for the preservation of wild places.

 

Today's Post Intelligencer has an article by Joel Connelly on this very topic. He portrays it as largely a "democrat vs republican" issue, but expresses ideas along the lines of what we discussed last week:

 

Post Intelligencer November 19

 

[Edited to add correct URL provided by Blake]

[Blake]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/340182_joel19.html

[Fairweather]

Great story. Maybe the tide is starting to turn and the absolutism of the greens will finally yield to moderation and compromise. Great to hear Evans is still hittin' the trail at 82!

 

 

[catbirdseat]

I liked it when he said that it was cars that pollute, not the roads they travel on. That's absolutely correct. It's naive of the Sierra Club to think that we should allow congestion to force everyone onto mass transit quickly enough to make a difference on global warming.

[marylou]

What is often not mentioned with regard to the upper Stehekin is that the NPS has estimated it will cost SIX MILLION dollars to fix the road. That can only take place after Congress votes to adjust the Wilderness boundary to make room for the rerouted road. With very limited exceptions that do not apply in this case, Federal Wilderness boundaries can only be changed through an act of Congress.

 

Funding for the Upper Stehekin would come out of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. That Subcommittee is also charged with funding road repairs elsewhere, such as in the FS land system. Yes, the FS and the NPS are, at Cabinet level, under different departments, but at the congressional funding level, they are not. If there is widespread public support for moving and fixing the upper Stehekin, that will essentially take away 6 million from other projects, such as repairing the road and bridge damage in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie NF. 6 millon would go a very long way there, and most of the MBSNF projects still don't have funding, even many of them from the 2003 flood.

 

What I'm trying to say about the upper Stehekin project is be careful what you ask for.

 

I did not care for Joel Connely's article, I think it further divides us instead of finding ways to bridge the gap between, say, the NCCC, and the WCC or other user groups who use roads to access recreation.

[billcoe]

One of the items that we discussed at last week's meeting of the Washington Climbers Coalition was the ongoing schism between those persons in the environmental community who view public lands and in particular wilderness areas as a place where recreational visitors should be extremely restricted or even excluded because human presence is inherently harmful and those who believe that human recreation is one of the important purposes for the preservation of wild places.

 

Today's Post Intelligencer has an article by Joel Connelly on this very topic. He portrays it as largely a "democrat vs republican" issue, but expresses ideas along the lines of what we discussed last week:

 

Post Intelligencer November 19

 

[Edited to add correct URL provided by Blake]

 

I think there is room for both.

 

Balance my friends, balance is best to achieve a long healthy fruitful life for us all.

 

 

Matt, is Dwayner going to show up to talk about bolts?

[dduncan]

In response to Marylou's point about the rad repair cost - the 6 million dollar figure is based on barging every rock, pebble and grain of sand required to fix the road up 55-mile Lake Chelan on barges, a very expensive proposition.

I have spoken personally with Cragg Courtney,the person who has all the equipment, know how and has done all the road repair/construction in the Stehekin Valley for the past twenty years and more and he assures me that if he had a million dollars and was permitted to get the road repair material from the allowed 100-foot corridor that he can do all the repairs and relocation required for well under 1 million dollars. And that is a small price to pay for an entry portal to a magnificent, inspiring wilderness area unlike any other in the world. Every year several thousand people used to ride the Park Service shuttle buses up into the upper valley but now that access portal is closed to 99% of them - not a good way to build the wide coalition Governor Evans spoke of before the WWC as necessary to preserve and extend our present wild areas. As the person who has done more than any one else to create and extend Washington's wilderness areas I think we should listen to what he has to say.

[jonah]

Regardless of your political beliefs, I think any discussion with our congressional representatives about these road repair costs should include a reminder that we have spent an average of $237,000,000 per DAY on the Iraq war since it began. Considering that Congress voted for that, it strains their credibility to claim that the money just isn't available and Washington citizens should have to fight amongst ourselves to get $6M in a whole year for badly needed road repairs.

[Blake]

I'm still not convinced that national park service repairs in the NCNP would directly compete for funds out of some given pool of money with other Forest Service repairs dear Darrington, or elsewhere on the west side. These are different departments of government, from a cabinet-level appointed executive on down. (interior vs agriculture)

 

At the WCC meeting Marylou/Allison Woods asserted that these WERE directly competing uses of funds, but I was unable to see that explained, listed, or proven anywhere on the website she referred me to, and neither was she.

 

http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_ienv.shtml

 

Maybe I am just blind and missing it, and Marylou could be 100% right, but I'd just like to know one way or the other.

 

Anyone have evidence to suggest that National park road repairs would be conducted at the literal "expense" of National Forest repairs, both taking money from the same specific budget?

[marylou]

As I explained to Blake in PM, the funding jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee covers roads in both the NPS and the FS. If Blake or anyone else needs someone to explain this in further detail, I'm sure there is someone in Congressman Dicks's office who will take the time to go over this.

 

Just because it seems counterintuitive to Blake does not make it incorrect, sorry.

[marylou]

In response to Marylou's point about the rad repair cost - the 6 million dollar figure is based on barging every rock, pebble and grain of sand required to fix the road up 55-mile Lake Chelan on barges, a very expensive proposition.

I have spoken personally with Cragg Courtney,the person who has all the equipment, know how and has done all the road repair/construction in the Stehekin Valley for the past twenty years and more and he assures me that if he had a million dollars and was permitted to get the road repair material from the allowed 100-foot corridor that he can do all the repairs and relocation required for well under 1 million dollars.

 

The former quarries in that valley have been partially decomissioned. I have some more information on that, let me see if I can find it.

 

It's great that this guy thinks he can do it on the cheap, but the NPS has rules and policies in place that make this impossible.

[marylou]

This, I will say, is merely a theory, HOWEVER, the following information makes it procedurally difficult or impossible to use the existing quarries. I would *think* it would probably take an EIS or at least an EA, to fully reopen the quarries.

 

I haven't researched this properly, but I suspect the need to ferry in sand and gravel is related the the 1995 Record of Decision establishing a Mgmt Plan for the park as required by the 1991 consent decree between the NCNP and NCCC -- the elements of this mgmt plan are part of the legal requirement placed on the NCNP by the courts as set forth in the consent decree. To wit, the 1995 NCNP mgmt plan states (in particular note the phrase "material beyond this limit or for new construction will be imported"):

 

Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan:

 

mining will only occur at the Company

Creek borrow pit; this pit will be reclaimed as new mining occurs;

sand, rock, and gravel will be conserved and recycled whenever

possible; except for emergencies, the use of sand, rock, and gravel

from the Company Creek pit will be limited to 1400 cubic yards per

year--1200 cubic yards for NPS use and 200 cubic yards for private use;

material beyond this limit or for new construction will be imported;

material will be used only for maintenance activities listed in the

plan; the reclaimed portions of the pit will be topsoiled, fertilized,

seeded, and planted with plant stocks indigenous to Stehekin; the

working face of the pit will be temporarily covered with native

grasses; the pit will be monitored before, during, and after active mining operations to identify sensitive

resources, to ensure that operations minimize impacts, and to see that

reclamation goals are met; the Rainbow Creek gravel pit will be

actively reclaimed including topographic restoration, surface erosion

control, nonnative species control, soil building, revegetation, plant

irrigation, and monitoring; continued natural recovery at all other

abandoned pits will be monitored.

[Fairweather]

Frankly, I would like to know why NCNP feels/felt compelled to enter into an agreement with a fringe group like NCCC. Keep in mind, this is the same group that has closure of Middle Fork Cascade River Road as their oft-stated long-term goal. They certainly don't represent the majority of resource users - or me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe any existing consent decree can be summarily nullified by the NPS. Here is NCCC's current statement regarding this issue (note that there are several factual inaccuracies in their statement):

 

The Upper Stehekin Valley Road

In late 2006, the National Park Service issued a decision to permanently close the upper ten miles of Stehekin Valley Road above Car Wash Falls. The lower 12.8 miles are not affected and will continue to serve all of the sites and amenities that the vast majority of visitors to Stehekin have enjoyed for many years. The upper Stehekin Valley Road, however, is extremely isolated and could only be reached from Stehekin, which itself requires a 50-mile boat ride up Lake Chelan to reach. There is no car ferry. Severe flood damage in 2003 (and many times previously) had made this one of the nation's most expensive roads to repair and maintain for the benefit of just a few dozen vehicles. The NCCC has always favored closing the road due to its impacts on wildlife, the Stehekin River, and other wilderness values. We were delighted that the issue was finally put to rest by the Park Service--that is, until Congressman Doc Hastings introduced, in August 2007, a bill (HR 3408) that would allow the road to be rebuilt by changing the boundary of the Stephen Mather Wilderness. This short-sighted legislation is not only damaging to the recovery of this spectacular wilderness valley, it is a threat to wilderness everywhere and should be vigorously opposed.

 

source:

http://www.northcascades.org/

[Blake]

Thanks Fairweather, below is the NCCC statement, with my factual corrections/clarifications present. I worked for the NCNP maintenance division in Stehekin during 2006 when this was decided.

 

 

The Upper Stehekin Valley Road

In late 2006, the National Park Service issued a decision to permanently close the upper ten miles of Stehekin Valley Road above Car Wash Falls.

 

The decision was made by July, and during Aug and/or Sept (while a fire burned and the Stehekin Landing was threatened) crews were helicoptered in to remove existing road culverts

 

The lower 12.8 miles are not affected and will continue to serve all of the sites and amenities that the vast majority of visitors to Stehekin have enjoyed for many years.

 

The shuttle now stops at the 10.9 mile point, leaving the remaining ~2 miles of existing road BEFORE the washout without shuttle service.

 

The upper Stehekin Valley Road, however, is extremely isolated and could only be reached from Stehekin, which itself requires a 50-mile boat ride up Lake Chelan to reach.

 

A 30-mile boat ride from Field's Point, a float plane or conventional small land plane, as well as hiking/horse riding also work. When the road was in place, it was a flat 12 mile jaunt from Rainy Pass to the Upper Stehekin Road.

 

There is no car ferry. Severe flood damage in 2003 (and many times previously) had made this one of the nation's most expensive roads to repair and maintain for the benefit of just a few dozen vehicles.

 

The most recent upper road damage before 2003 occurred in 1995. Calling it "one of the nation's most expensive roads" is too vague to be constructive to the issue. Most expensive per mile? Per driver? Without actual facts/comparisons, this assertion is meaningless. The road isn't there to "benefit vehicles" it was there for climbers/hikers/mt. bikers to enjoy, and for fire-fighting, S&R,and other Gov. uses.

 

The NCCC has always favored closing the road due to its impacts on wildlife, the Stehekin River, and other wilderness values. We were delighted that the issue was finally put to rest by the Park Service--that is, until Congressman Doc Hastings introduced, in August 2007, a bill (HR 3408) that would allow the road to be rebuilt by changing the boundary of the Stephen Mather Wilderness.

 

The first part of this statement is a direct lie. The NCCC was founded in 1957 with the goal of creating the NCNP and did not make closing roads a goal. This road was administered by Chelan County, and remained as such until ~1990. Many Stehekin residents and NW climbers were early members of the NCCC, including NoCa First Ascentionists Duke Watson and Grant McConnell. In fact, founding member and arguable catalyst for the group's inception was Grant McConell, who took part in FAs of the area including the East Ridge of Buckner.... accessed via the Park Creek trail and upper Stehekin Road. To say that the NCCC has always favored this road's closing is either disturbingly ignorant or an intentional lie. The rest of the statement is not necessarily false, but is vague and/or intentionally misleading. The issue was not "put to rest" and the Superintendant of the NPS stated in a meeting during the summer of 2006 that the practical reality was: the washout could not be repaired within the existing corridor/right-of-way because the river changed courses to occupy this corridor. It was stated that the NCNP would follow directives of the people, through their reps in Congress,and if Congress Authorized a repair by moving the road right-of-way, then those directives would be followed.

 

This short-sighted legislation is not only damaging to the recovery of this spectacular wilderness valley, it is a threat to wilderness everywhere and should be vigorously opposed.

 

Without quantifying or explaining HOW the river negatively impacted wildlife, or explaining what road-induced impacts the valley is recovering from this is just more rhetoric. If there was ANY data showing negative impacts of the road to back up their assertions, they would be valuable inputs to this discussion

 

source:

http://www.northcascades.org/

 

I don't think that the NCCC really serves any community well by fabrications and vague assertions not grounded in facts.

 

As mentioned above, its hard to swallow the excuse of "not enough funds" when we see how much the federal government spends on any-number of multi-billion dollar boon-doggles.

[chucK]

Funny how the NCCC statement says in one breath how hardly any cars would go up that road (due to no cars being up there and no ferry to bring cars), then in the next how opening the road would cause terrible damage.

 

It amazes me when people apparently contradict themselves in the same statement. It shows that they are not worried about logic, only interested in piling on "facts" that somehow support their point.

[marylou]

The reason the NCNP deals with the NCCC is because if they don't, the NCCC sues them. It's too long a story to write down on the interwebs, but I'd be happy to share what I know about this history over a beer.

 

I probably would support this project if we could look at it costing a number other than 6MIL. In the context of road repairs, that's just too much money. Sorry, no.

 

I think the impression that this matter had been resolved by the Park is based on the fact that they did an EA a couple of years ago and said they weren't going to do the project. It would be easy to make that assumption based on the findings of the EA. That's sure what I thought until Hastings introduced the legislation.

 

There are so many informed opinions on this discussion that I'm sure I'm not the only one who would agree that the person who was the Superintendent of the NPS in 2006 was a highly skilled politician who could make a citizen feel like there was hope for their pet issue.

[Fairweather]

Its not about the money. It's about an agenda. It's simple: Groups that oppose the repair of roads that provide access to popular recreation areas on federal lands are not worthy of support by traditional users. These same "environmental" groups are short sighted in that they erode support for wilderness values by the exclusion and eviction of those who would otherwise support them.

 

Not man apart.

 

 

West Side Road MRNP

Dosewallips Road ONP

Stehiken River Road NCNP

White Chuck River Road USFS

Mountain Loop/Barlow Pass USFS

Suiattle River Road USFS

Middle Fork Snoqualmie Road USFS

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't think that the NCCC really serves any community well by fabrications and vague assertions not grounded in facts.

 

As mentioned above, its hard to swallow the excuse of "not enough funds" when we see how much the federal government spends on any-number of multi-billion dollar boon-doggles.

 

Does anyone else see the irony of these two juxtaposed statements?

 

Blake, you know as well as anyone else here that the road repair budget is separate and very limited from those expensive federal 'boondoggles'. Yours is a non-argument. Wishing to live in a magical fairy kingdom doesn't make it so.

 

It also seemed that you were nitpicking the NCCC's statement for petty innaccuracies that didn't really have much to do with the issue at hand. A 50 mile versus 30 mile boat ride? Who cares? (most passengers opt for the 50 mile trip, BTW) Only disagreements with their last statement seemed substantive. You could have simply left it at that and made a stronger point.

 

Pretending that 'money has nothing to do with this' will get you nowhere on this issue. This issue is all about projects competing for limited funds.

 

Personally, it seems like, while repairing the Stehekin road might be nice, it's too much buck for the bang as compared to other worthy road repair projects. As you mentioned, you can walk 12 flat miles into the area. That alone seems to reduce the importance of repairing this particularly expensive road to just about zero.

Edited November 30, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Blake]

 

Blake, you know as well as anyone else here that the road repair budget is separate and very limited from those expensive federal 'boondoggles'. Yours is a non-argument. Wishing to live in a magical fairy kingdom doesn't make it so.

 

 

Obviously budgets for the military/farm subsidies/etc are separate from those to repair remote roads.

 

I was just pointing out that those who create and divy up these budgets find enough taxpayer money to destroy and rebuild roads in foreign countries, so its hard to believe they can't repair the existing ones here.

 

(obviously these types of budgetary decisions are made at levels far above the NCNP)

 

 

In regards to nit-picking the NCCC statement:

 

I agree, I picked every nit right out of that thing! It wasn't because each individual point was important to refute, it was to demonstrate the broader picture of factual innacuracies, oversimplifications, and misleading rhetoric.

 

(techniques used by many groups, of which the NCCC is one)

 

In regards to "bang for the buck".... during a span of several weeks last summer, the NPS spent more money ferrying loads of fire-fighting equipment across the road washout via helicopters than it would have cost to just repair the road to its traditional capacity and drive!

(and obviously had it been repaired, it would have been repaired for future use of fire-fighting, S&R uses, and climbers/hikers/fishers/skiers/whiners-like-me.)

[tvashtarkatena]

Fair enough on the fire fighting savings, but who knows where the next fire might strike and what roads will be most critical at that future time? One might argue that, since the area has already burned, the firefighting priority for repairing the Stehekin road is lowered.

 

Blake, how would you divvy up the budget, as it exists, road for road, and what criteria would you use for establishing those priorities?

[Blake]

This fire covered just 315 acres! One could hardly say that this whole area, serviced by 12 miles of road, is now burned and less fire prone.

 

What budget are you talking about? The Federal Gov's? NPS?

 

Either way, I wouldn't make a "road-by-road" allowance, because that would be so inefficient and unproductive. Splitting up a transportation network into "road units" and viewing each as an autonomous entity to receive up to, and no more than "X" dollars per year, and setting each budget at the year's beginning, makes no sense to me. Does any gov agency currently divide and fix each road such a budget per year? I doubt it.

 

If that's not what you were asking, then I misunderstood the question. If your intent was to have folks realize the difficulty of making these decisions, then I agree, they are very complicated.

 

Criteria for me would include, but not be limited to: Legal obligations to provide for transportation/access, visitors per year, cars per year, historical precendence, possibilities of a substitute, associated effects of non-repair, environmental impacts of repair and non-repair, projected costs of repair and non-repair, chance of future repairs, expected future maintenance costs....

[tvashtarkatena]

This fire covered just 315 acres! One could hardly say that this whole area, serviced by 12 miles of road, is now burned and less fire prone.

 

What budget are you talking about? The Federal Gov's? NPS?

 

Either way, I wouldn't make a "road-by-road" allowance, because that would be so inefficient and unproductive. Splitting up a transportation network into "road units" and viewing each as an autonomous entity to receive up to, and no more than "X" dollars per year, and setting each budget at the year's beginning, makes no sense to me. Does any gov agency currently divide and fix each road such a budget per year? I doubt it.

 

If that's not what you were asking, then I misunderstood the question. If your intent was to have folks realize the difficulty of making these decisions, then I agree, they are very complicated.

 

Criteria for me would include, but not be limited to: Legal obligations to provide for transportation/access, visitors per year, cars per year, historical precendence, possibilities of a substitute, associated effects of non-repair, environmental impacts of repair and non-repair, projected costs of repair and non-repair, chance of future repairs, expected future maintenance costs....

 

$6 million worth of firefighting to fight a 315 acre fire?

 

What I asked was:

 

Given the amount of money that is actually budgeted and available, and given the EXISTING system for allocating that money (regardless of how you think the system could be improved, it's not going to change), how would you prioritize/allocate those funds?

Edited November 30, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[marylou]

This is a little o/t, but why was there firefighting going up there anyway? Don't we have a 'let it burn' policy on naturally started fires (e.g. lightning strikes) in areas like this? Admittedly, I'm a bit ignorant on fire suppression policy.